[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
rE: Message IDs and moderators
Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
When sending proto-articles around
to moderators, no Netnews article has yet been created.
A proto-article is an article. At the least, it is an RFC2822 message.
An unknown amount
of interaction between the moderator and the poster will occur before the
message is actually sent,
Usually "none" covers the amount before the message is injected, but it is
sent the second the author sends it.
Again, consider the RISKS digest, which is a very
illustrative corner case of the sort of thing that can happen to a
submission to a moderated group.
RISKS Digest is a particularly poor illustration since the Digest is a
digest of a MAILING list which is distributed by moderated newsgroup.
Further, each article in that group is posted by the RISKS digest author,
and the headers of each article clearly represent that.
From the perspective of the protocol, nothing in the protocol breaks if
the moderator changes the message ID. I know this from a practical basis:
many moderators do this now and Usenet still works.
Agree. Cancels must be delayed until the article arrives at the poster's
site, but if the poster is cancelling an unapproved forgery he'd have
to wait anyway.
I'm being a bit hard-nosed here about saying "if you don't like it, maybe
my draft isn't for you" because this is typical of multiple changes I made
to remove remaining best-practice requirements from the protocol draft and
that was one of the significant philosophical differences I have with the
We already have a problem with an editor that makes unilateral changes to
the draft(s) and ignores consensus. If using this draft means that certain
things are not negotiable, then I change my vote in the straw poll.